"There needs to be a clear policy, nationwide, to deal with our crazy people problem."
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Until this country can prove that it's above electing and appointing lunatics[1] that would have the power to set that policy, this needs to be something that's handled on a State-by-State basis (as the Constitution would have us do) where different States can experiment with different approaches that suit their particular contexts. How to deal with the mentally ill will (and should) be different in Wyoming versus Massachusetts versus Florida.
As Lizzie points out below, we have more of a funding issue - this stuff isn't cheap - more than we have a lack of available policies. Until people are willing to see their taxes go up to treat this problem humanely, nothing good is going to happen on this front. And empowering the State to enforce psychological medication adherence will make the fight over the COVID vaccine mandates look like a nice game of Pat-a-cake.
Lunatic asylums were closed not because of legal considerations, but because of cost. Once it was clear that there was no cure and that people would have to be institutionalized for life, cities, states and people in general gave up, for the relief to the public budget. The same was true a few years later about jails. SCOTUS said that jails had to provide minimal humanitarian conditions and overcrowding was not acceptable. Without spending more money for more jails, and without employing the Roman remedy of decimation in the high security prisons to make more room for the folks graduated from medium security, etc., the only option was to let people out early or not sentence them in the first place. The Progressive push for social justice was NEVER about love, caring, or forgiveness outside of the public propaganda which was designed to let the public accept the renunciation of the government duty to maintain order.
This is no longer true, if it ever was completely true. There are medicines now for many conditions that were lifetime mental health problems in the past. If people with these conditions would take their medication, they can lead fruitful lives. So it’s no longer a lifetime, but a safety net for many. And cost was not necessarily the primary factor for closing. Conditions were terrible and public opinion turned.
Mental health professionals used to prescribe antipsychotic drugs, but which strictly monitor the patient in a hospital setting. That does not happen anymore. They just throw whatever drugs seem right and assume that the patient will not have an adverse reaction to it. It is possible to give someone the wrong drug and they have a psychotic episode as a result. You really don’t know what people are functioning under nowadays. 😒😳
The military does in fact have stringent requirements for handling guns, and trainings/certification for specific weapons. In fact, weapons are not carried around at will, but only when on specific duties where one must be armed.
But we're also not all part of the military, so this is a pointless question.
Not pointless. Two mass shootings were done by military members whose own services were concerned about their mental health yet not enough was done. Background checks and training are not enough and won’t solve the problem when it’s mental health. It’s not a gun problem it is a crazy problem.
Your question was about how the military regulates access to firearms while on duty. Now you're bringing up the lack of good systems for reporting mental health issues *in general*, which of course leads to issues with background checks.
There are plenty of crazy people elsewhere, but only here do they have easy access to guns.
I approached it as a "yes, and" situation: you refuse to do so.
Just be frank and say you don't want there to be more hoops to jump through for access to firearms, and that you find the price to be an acceptable trade-off.
Our *current* background check system. We seem to be in agreement that that system needs to be enhanced, but for some reason you are resisting saying so. And making those background checks universal - so that one cannot easily get around them by going on Craigslist to buy a weapon - is vitally important too.
Training is about safety, licensing is about ensuring said training was performed and the person is up to standards.
People will keep killing each other, yes. But why don't you want to mitigate the issue?
"There needs to be a clear policy, nationwide, to deal with our crazy people problem."
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Until this country can prove that it's above electing and appointing lunatics[1] that would have the power to set that policy, this needs to be something that's handled on a State-by-State basis (as the Constitution would have us do) where different States can experiment with different approaches that suit their particular contexts. How to deal with the mentally ill will (and should) be different in Wyoming versus Massachusetts versus Florida.
As Lizzie points out below, we have more of a funding issue - this stuff isn't cheap - more than we have a lack of available policies. Until people are willing to see their taxes go up to treat this problem humanely, nothing good is going to happen on this front. And empowering the State to enforce psychological medication adherence will make the fight over the COVID vaccine mandates look like a nice game of Pat-a-cake.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/01/the-madness-of-robert-f-kennedy-jr/
So what other policies are now impossible to discuss because the current administration is not to our liking?
Lunatic asylums were closed not because of legal considerations, but because of cost. Once it was clear that there was no cure and that people would have to be institutionalized for life, cities, states and people in general gave up, for the relief to the public budget. The same was true a few years later about jails. SCOTUS said that jails had to provide minimal humanitarian conditions and overcrowding was not acceptable. Without spending more money for more jails, and without employing the Roman remedy of decimation in the high security prisons to make more room for the folks graduated from medium security, etc., the only option was to let people out early or not sentence them in the first place. The Progressive push for social justice was NEVER about love, caring, or forgiveness outside of the public propaganda which was designed to let the public accept the renunciation of the government duty to maintain order.
This is no longer true, if it ever was completely true. There are medicines now for many conditions that were lifetime mental health problems in the past. If people with these conditions would take their medication, they can lead fruitful lives. So it’s no longer a lifetime, but a safety net for many. And cost was not necessarily the primary factor for closing. Conditions were terrible and public opinion turned.
Be careful what you want for you may get it
After seeing that video of the lady being stabbed on mass transit, it reminded me of riding light rail in my city, a that could happen to me moment
Mental health professionals used to prescribe antipsychotic drugs, but which strictly monitor the patient in a hospital setting. That does not happen anymore. They just throw whatever drugs seem right and assume that the patient will not have an adverse reaction to it. It is possible to give someone the wrong drug and they have a psychotic episode as a result. You really don’t know what people are functioning under nowadays. 😒😳
Amen!
Sure: and, implement universal background checks and licensing requirements for guns.
Does the military do universal background checks and have stringent requirements for handling guns? Just asking.
The military does in fact have stringent requirements for handling guns, and trainings/certification for specific weapons. In fact, weapons are not carried around at will, but only when on specific duties where one must be armed.
But we're also not all part of the military, so this is a pointless question.
Not pointless. Two mass shootings were done by military members whose own services were concerned about their mental health yet not enough was done. Background checks and training are not enough and won’t solve the problem when it’s mental health. It’s not a gun problem it is a crazy problem.
Your question was about how the military regulates access to firearms while on duty. Now you're bringing up the lack of good systems for reporting mental health issues *in general*, which of course leads to issues with background checks.
There are plenty of crazy people elsewhere, but only here do they have easy access to guns.
I approached it as a "yes, and" situation: you refuse to do so.
Just be frank and say you don't want there to be more hoops to jump through for access to firearms, and that you find the price to be an acceptable trade-off.
No my question was to illuminate that background checks and training don’t prevent mentally ill people from committing mass murder.
Our *current* background check system. We seem to be in agreement that that system needs to be enhanced, but for some reason you are resisting saying so. And making those background checks universal - so that one cannot easily get around them by going on Craigslist to buy a weapon - is vitally important too.
Training is about safety, licensing is about ensuring said training was performed and the person is up to standards.
People will keep killing each other, yes. But why don't you want to mitigate the issue?
Alligator Alcatraz? Really? Grrrrrrr